Not to belabor Hall of Fame voting, but one aspect of this year’s balloting was intriguing for its peculiarity, stemming from the votes for Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.

In their three years on the ballot, neither steroids-stained superstar has fared well. Both have attracted voting percentages in the mid-30s, far below the 75 percent required for entry into the Hall, their number of votes obviously affected by their entanglement with performance-enhancing drugs.

If writers were to react to the pair’s similar status as superstars and PED-poppers, they would be expected to withhold votes from both. If, on the other hand, they chose to ignore the players’ cheating and vote for them on their playing merits, the writers would be expected to vote for both.

In either case, Clemens and Bonds would be expected to receive the same number of votes. But they never have in their three years on the ballot. Clemens has received several more votes than Bonds all three years: 214-206, 202-198, 206-202.

The results have been more curious than significant. They would be more significant if the slight separation put one of them in the Hall and left the other on the outside looking in. Neither is close to getting in the door, though, and prospects for entry seem non-existent.

The Hall of Fame does not disclose writers’ votes, but if the writers choose, they can publish their ballots on the web site of the Baseball Writers Association. That’s where I found the three ballots that intrigued me. Two of the writers voted for Bonds but not Clemens and one voted for Clemens but not Bonds.

To give Clemens a four-vote margin over Bonds there had to be at least five other ballots with Clemens checked but not Bonds. As of early Thursday morning, 230 ballots had been published, meaning the other “split” ballots were among the 319 non-published ballots.

Alan Robinson, formerly of the Associated Press in Pittsburgh, where I began my career, and Barry Rozner of the Daily Herald in Arlington Heights, Ill., voted for Bonds but not Clemens. Mike Fine, who used to cover baseball for the Quincy (Mass.) Patriot Ledger, voted for Clemens but not Bonds.

Robinson voted for five players; Rozner and Fine each voted for the maximum of 10 players, as did a record 280 of the 549 writers who cast ballots.

Many writers have campaigned for an increase in the maximum of 10 or elimination of the maximum altogether. At a BBWAA meeting last month, the writers voted to recommend to the Hall’s board of directors that the maximum be raised to 12.

My guess is the board will approve the recommendation to placate the writers, knowing it won’t make a difference in the outcome of the voting. Ten players have never been elected in the same year, let alone a dozen.

Why anyone would vote for 10 or 12 players is beyond me. I would suggest to voters who do reexamine their standards. They are voting for good or very good players. They are not voting only for the very best, which is what the Hall of Fame should be about. Give them the OK to vote for more than 10, and they probably will. The more boxes they can check the better.

Robinson voted for two of the four players who were elected, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, plus Bonds, Fred McGriff and Tim Raines.

“I looked at each guy individually,” he said in a telephone interview. “I’m a tough voter.”

Why Bonds, whom Robinson covered in Bonds’ early years with the Pirates, and not Clemens?

“I went back and forth with Barry,” he said. “With Barry, we have a clear line of demarcation when he started using ‘roids. The physical changes are noticeable. His head gets bigger. His body gets bigger. He’s hulk like. We are pretty sure when he started juicing. He was already a Hall of Famer when he started.

“Clemens we don’t know. Physically, it’s not as easy to describe as with Barry. We don’t know what seasons he did and what seasons he didn’t. With Barry, we know, but to me Barry was already a Hall of Famer if his career had ended right then. With Clemens we don’t know.”

Robinson said he didn’t vote for Bonds the first two years he was eligible. “Then the more I thought about it I decided he was a Hall of Famer before he began using,” he said.

That is an argument I have heard from other writers, but in my view, if Bonds had achieved Hall of Fame status before 1998 or ’99, which is when he allegedly began using illegal substances, he forfeited his place in Cooperstown by cheating the rest of his career.

“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team (s) on which the player played,”

That’s a BBWAA rule, not the Hall’s, and the words integrity, sportsmanship and character aren’t in Rule 5 just for their sound. Some writers point to Hall members who were elected despite their lack of integrity or their poor character, but that’s not an excuse to elect players who cheat by using illegal drugs.

Rozner said he often is asked why he has voted for Bonds but not Clemens and explained he didn’t withhold his vote from anyone on the basis of Rule 5.

“My feeling on Bonds,” he said echoing Robinson, “was I thought he was a Hall of Famer before he started using. With Clemens, it wasn’t clear when he started. If it sounds hypocritical I can live with that. It’s not a perfect system. I wish I had more information on Clemens. I’d love to vote for him because he’s one of the greatest of all time.”

Rozner added, “It doesn’t appear that any of those real obvious guys will get in. It would make my life easier if I didn’t vote for Bonds.”

Fine did not vote for Bonds this year, but he did vote for Clemens.

“I’ve always believed PEDs shouldn’t be used as a factor in voting, so I went with Clemens and Bonds in the past,” he said in an e-mail. “But, honestly, my head is spinning when I’m researching these guys. So this year I deemed there were numerous strong candidates and decided to invoke the character clause with Bonds, deeming him a jerk who perhaps doesn’t meet Hall standards.

”Look, I know he belongs on merit, but I just had trouble voting for him. I know there are other less than perfect guys but Bonds is way worse. Fact is, I have trouble being consistent year to year with my principles.”

When it comes to PED players, I don’t blame writers for having problems being consistent. The decision writers have to make about those players is probably the most difficult they have to make.

There is no right or wrong. I might think writers who vote for players like Bonds, Clemens and Mike Piazza are wrong, but they have their reasons for voting the way they do and they are entitled to their reasons.

I will just predict that a player will be elected to the Hall of Fame and subsequently be discovered to have cheated his way into the joint.